I've received at least three, now four replies to my current Slashdot signature:

USA already has other public options: public schools and USPS Priority Mail over private schools and UPS 3 Day Select.

My signature points out that the United States has a history of public and private sectors competing in a given sector. For example, an engineering student in Indiana can go to Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (private), or she can go to Purdue University (public). An online hobby store can ship packages to customers with United Parcel Service (private), or it can ship them with United States Postal Service (semipublic, funded by an exclusive contract with the US Government for mailing letters).

As of the third quarter of 2009, health insurance for United States residents under age 65 is mostly provided by employers, who make insurance available to their employees. But not all employers are large enough to qualify for group insurance plans, and some employers even restrict employees to part-time hours so that they don't have to offer coverage. Some insurers offer individual plans, but these are known for refusing to cover people with any of several sorts of preexisting conditions. Estimates of the number of documented U.S. residents without health insurance range from 8 million to 47 million.

The legislature of the United States, called the Congress, has recognized that the lack of universal coverage is holding America back compared to other highly-developed countries. Its members have been debating whether to form a public health insurer to compete with private insurers; this hypothetical insurer has been nicknamed "Public Option" or "Obamacare" in the news media. Some more fiscally conservative members of the Congress argue that any public option would distort the market, and people would leave their current plans and end up on Obamacare. Yes, some people will switch from their current insurer to Obamacare, but that's to be expected: people switched from UPS 3-Day Select when USPS introduced flat-rate shipping boxes.

This post [slashdot.org] appears to confuse a public option in the sense of "managed or funded by a government" with one in the sense of "managed or funded at the federal level of government". I'd like to clarify that I meant the former: K-12 schools are managed and funded primarily at the state and local level.

The constitution grants the Federal Government the power to run a postal system. Please point to where it gives the Federal Government the powers to run a health system or a school system?

Yes a working public health system is a ridiculous thing not to have in a wealthy society, something like the Australian model of public and private option is better for everyone involved. And the US would be better off with one. But it's not an option at the Federal level, it wou

Unless of course you are in the "the constitution is toilet paper" camp.

If the Congress's enumerated "power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" doesn't cover a publicly administered health insurer, then the government has been in this camp since President Johnson signed Medicare into law.

That isn't adding "general welfare" as a end-run around enumerated powers so that anything the government wants to do is fine. It is adding the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to those two things with a restriction on how they can be used.

So a tax on gasoline with the aim of reducing gasoline usage as opposed to with the aim of raising revenue to fund the government would be unconstitutional (not that anyone cares) at the Federal level.

I do think it's funny that people are willing (even enthusiastic) to vote for politicians that say, "I will do X," but they are unwilling to amend the constitution to say "Government may/will do X." WTF is up with that?

I do think it's funny that people are willing (even enthusiastic) to vote for politicians that say, "I will do X," but they are unwilling to amend the constitution to say "Government may/will do X." WTF is up with that?

A politician needs 51 percent of the people to get elected, sometimes even less in jurisdictions that haven't been completely Duvergerified [wikipedia.org]. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution needs 67 percent of the House, 67 percent of the Senate, and 75 percent of the state legislatures.

There are differences between those that you point out. For one, in general the USPS and public schools are inferior to the services offered by private companies. Its not really a matter of life or death if your package is delayed or if little Bobby has a crap high school geometry teacher. But lets say the same standards are held to healthcare, a bad treatment in some cases is going to kill you more than being untreated, any fiscally responsible health care plan wouldn't pay for an expensive doctor when a c

The US does well at cancer survival rates because it has very good screening programs. If you diagnose early you are much more likely to be alive 5 years later - even if you then didn't do any treatment since you've padded out the population with early stage cases.

This is clearly a good thing, early detection also leads to more successful treatments, it's not all statistical games.

Europe is the wrong place to compare against anyway, your lumping Norway in with the Ukraine.

Not necessarily. I've found that especially for smaller packages, Priority Mail is often faster and cheaper than UPS Ground.

Sometimes, but I have had a lot worse experiences with the USPS being unfriendly compared to Fed-Ex and UPS. It could be somewhat because of the infrequency of non-USPS delivery (I get the mail 6 times a day and a UPS/Fed-Ex package once or twice a week).

Is that a pay wall (professionals only) or just a free reg. req. (health consumers welcome)?